IsmAvatar
|
|
Reply #15 Posted on: March 01, 2011, 11:04:35 pm |
|
|
LateralGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
|
I've created a {{review}} template. All functions undergoing peer review should include {{review}} near the top. This will automatically categorize them and add a nifty little box on the right saying that it's undergoing peer review. http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Template:ReviewPlease feel free to improve upon the template and the categorization process if you are familiar with wiki templating/categorization.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #16 Posted on: March 03, 2011, 12:18:31 pm |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
OK so is this set to go then? I want to make sure we can actually sort something out because I believe it is necessary to help drive progress.
So the first thing needed is to populate the function list on wiki. Are you working on this TGMG?
|
|
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #18 Posted on: March 06, 2011, 06:32:59 am |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
I have created an example on the wiki (feel free to edit it): http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/GM_function_example
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 07:09:43 am by polygone »
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #19 Posted on: March 06, 2011, 04:56:09 pm |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
OK I've done all the templates and categories I think we need: UnimplementedReviewTestingTo CommitImplementedI think this is a good approval process to go through.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 07:43:38 pm by polygone »
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
TGMG
|
|
Reply #20 Posted on: March 07, 2011, 06:27:42 am |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 107
|
Thats looking good polygone A few things about the function example, I think we should split the page into two sections, one thats easy for users to read about the function and the other for implementation details. So for example the first section will have a high level description of the function, a description of all the arguments, examples for how to use it etc The second section would ideally have the code, unit tests (well assert statements) to make sure any changes don't break the function, general details such as where it fails and what still needs to be done. Also we need if possible to automatically turn all those functions in the current unimplemented function list into links to their own page.
|
|
|
Logged
|
meGMbed 2.0 :: Embed you gm games in websites.
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #21 Posted on: March 07, 2011, 07:02:13 am |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
A few things about the function example, ... Edit the function example page to whatever you think it should look like. Also we need if possible to automatically turn all those functions in the current unimplemented function list into links to their own page. That list isn't really needed. They will all categorize automatically when we add them: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Unimplemented
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 07:10:58 am by polygone »
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #22 Posted on: March 07, 2011, 07:52:22 am |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
I have added another template and category: Implemented - Needs DocumentationWhat I suggest we do is get RetroX to generate a list of both unimplemented functions and implemented functions. Then we can add them to the wiki using the bot at the same time. The unimplemented functions can be posted using the {{unimplemented}} tag and the implemented functions can be posted using the same format but just tagged to {{committed - needs documentation}} instead.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 07:46:46 pm by polygone »
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
IsmAvatar
|
|
Reply #23 Posted on: March 07, 2011, 02:49:39 pm |
|
|
LateralGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
|
Thank you again, polygon, for all your help with the wiki. We should consider renaming "Committed" to "Implemented" so that the category also makes sense for functions that got fast-tracked in (e.g. already existed without a peer-review process). Also, consider adding a "Rejected" category and a "Rejected" template which can have a reason (although I'm tempted to say: "must" have a reason). Also, see: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Peer_ReviewAll those new catagories you created should be super-categorized under this.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #25 Posted on: March 07, 2011, 04:25:49 pm |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
May I suggest that all contributed functions should come with some example/unit test to prove correctness? If not at contribution-time, then at least before being approved.
I have added it as a suggestion that an example files should be submitted. I don't think it's necessary to force it though, a user with SVN access should be capable of judging the reliability of the testing. @IsmAvatar: I have made those changes. We might want to consider different images instead of the bullshit for the several review stages, so it is more easy to recognise the stage of the function upon glance.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 04:43:01 pm by polygone »
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #28 Posted on: March 13, 2011, 07:40:05 am |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
They will populate automatically when the templates are being used, ie when {{implemented}} is used it will automatically categorise to the Template Category. When the wiki bot is created hopefully it should post all the functions using a template. Then functions following the function peer review process should still remain with a template, it will just be changed. All the functions already documented on the wiki (like the pages you linked to) should be changed to fit in the procedure. I'm not sure exactly what's best for function sets. It makes sense to post function sets just in a single post, perhaps the title could just be for example draw_text_*. Then the overall system and code can be explained and commented on in a single place. However there will be an issue with making the wiki bot do this (ie it will have to post differently) and I do also think it's right to have a full list of categorised individual functions, so a function can easily be found from a category. It may be best for every function to have an individual page, then all functions in a set can be marked with an extra category. The overall system of the function set can then be explained in the category.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 07:43:39 am by polygone »
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
polygone
|
|
Reply #29 Posted on: March 15, 2011, 07:11:18 pm |
|
|
Location: England Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 794
|
OK here is my full proposal for the bot. 1) Two full lists are made of all the implemented and non-implemented GM functions. 2) All the functions on each list are read and posted in individual articles on the wiki, using just the function name as the topic title. 3) All the articles are posted using the Function Example format (if anyone thinks this should be changed then do it now). The function_name(parameters) line within the post can be generated using the function name and parameters read, the rest will just have to remain empty ready for people to fill in. All function from the unimplemented list use the {{Unimplemented}} tag, all functions from the implemented list use the {{Implemented}} tag and are also categorised under [[Category:All_pages_needing_cleanup]] so we know they still need documenting. 4) As for function sets, I think they are still best to all be posted individually. They can be gone over and categorised / documented as a function set when people come to them. That's it for now, the forum bot can be dealt with later. It's just necessary right now to populate the functions so people are actually able to use the system.
|
|
|
Logged
|
I honestly don't know wtf I'm talking about but hopefully I can muddle my way through.
|
|
|
|